questionreality

I would say it has more to do with certain types of people in general, not just women. The more someone’s image (or identity) is built around being , "highly conscious", more developed, unusually compassionate, wise etc the less I take that image as evidence of those qualities. Character is revealed much more reliably by how someone behaves when their values become inconvenient, especially toward people they dislike, disagree with, or have nothing to gain from. Authenticity is something that cannot be faked.

@LordFall She did the same thing with me. Just ignored my main point, pretended like she didn't notice it. She made me repeat it and for the 3rd time she just said "declined" and did not go any further. I thought it was just with me, but looks like it's a pattern.

Of course! @LordFall is a rare gem btw, his advice could not be more true. Notice how he totally ignored the @yetineti troll and recognized that he added no value. You can't win with discussions with trolls, they force you to step down to their level and thus bring you down with them. Ignoring users like that is the best approach, it is not possible to have genuine discussions with them.

I don't need to read the private messages to understand what that user is doing in this thread. Reading the last 20 pages of this thread alone is enough to make this conclusion.

I thought the issue was resolved by now, yet I come back 12 hours later and there are 20 more pages. I decided to go through all the pages and this is what I found: The same user @yetinetihas made roughly 70% of the all the posts in this thread, with seemingly endless trolling and attacks. He literally gave himself out earlier by calling @Inliytened1 old man twice, among other things. When he was called out, he toned it down and continued with more sophisitcated trolling. For the last 20 pages, this appears to be the only person who has had a problem with the thread. No one else. It is sad that @Natasha Tori Maru has not been able to spot this. @Leo Gura Please review @yetineti 's post history in this thread.

I come back here 14 hours later and it’s still going, with even more white knights piling on. As has already been said, people who accuse others of being judgmental are often some of the most judgmental people themselves. That’s the irony of it all. You got a user yetineti straight out calling @Inliytened1 old man, while demanding apology and accountability from him, are you kidding me? Only one woman has actually come forward saying she was offended, and she also happens to be a mod. For some reason retraction and apology is not enough for Natasha. I think @LordFall nailed it when he said this thread has triggered a lot of shadows. I don't think I have seen this much projection in a while. As I said, the title of this thread makes it obvious what it is about and what type of content it will contain. You don't have to read it and get your feelings hurt, if the language that it uses is not acceptable for you. Simply don't read it, you don't need to torture yourself. Hopefully the thread can get back on track and people can answer the question: Where have you fucked the girl?

1) & 2) You are now again being dishonest and changed the meaning of what I said. I never said that people can't criticize. All I said was that for people who find it offensive can choose not to read it and then they will not be offended. Same thing as choosing to not watch a video that may be offensive to some viewers. 3) You are the one that uses the terms "right", "wrong" , "low quality" , "lower consciousness" , etc. I have never once used any of these terms, or anything similar. And yes, saying that I accused you of being immoral is a lie in this case. 4) Before throwing around terms, you should at least know what they actually mean. You clearly don’t understand what constitutes a personal attack. None of those are personal attacks. This is my last reply to you.

I will not accept anymore lies or BS from you. 1) You either don't know what "policing" or "accusing" means, or you are just making being totally dishonest. 2) All I said was that a person has a choice. If you don't like the language used in the thread, nobody is forcing them to read it. 3) I have never accused you of being immoral, all I said was that you were petty. 4) I have not made a single personal attack against you. Show me one example.

I have presented my argument TWICE, and I repeated it for you already, yet you conveniently ignored it. Here it is for the 3rd time:

Who appointed you the arbiter of truth and morality, and put you in charge of policing this thread?

Their psychology is mind boggling to me. They are struggling with getting laid, yet here you are with such vast experience in exactly that. Instead of learning from you, asking you questions, and trying to understand what works, they choose to engage in this petty bullshit instead.

First of all, he already retracted and apologized for anyone he already offended for those two terms. The fact that you continue to bring it up after he has apologized says a lot more about you as a person than it does about him. Second of all, those terms were used for past experiences, and he didn't insult anyone in particular on this forum or someone he is engaging with now. Who appointed you to be arbiter of morality and truth? If you put as much time and energy into your dating life as you do getting offended over pity things, you’d probably have a lot more success.

Who made you the voice of truth? Who are you to say what is right, wrong and "higher values" are? You must be a masochist for continuing to engage in such "low consciousness" thread and torturing yourself.

Majority on this forum are men. Certainly threads like this carry a lot of value for men. And as I said, nobody is forcing women or anyone else to read this thread. Why are they torturing themselves, I have no idea... If you notice also, a lot of those men that choose to get offended usually don't get laid at all and have serious troubles. Hence why they don't have the answer to the actual question that was asked in this thread. Go figure

Over 2k views in 24 hours! This shows that this thread was really needed. I really appreciate the fun and not serious vibes from @Inliytened1

Where did I say that you are disagreeing with the thread? I made it clear that you are disagreeing with the language he uses: The title of the thread should give you enough of a clue alone. Why torture yourself? Or is a warning message "viewer discretion is advised) in the opening post really needed? Who are you to determine what is "low quality", what is "high consciousness", what is "low consciousness", etc ? Are you a masochist? Why torture yourself and continue reading this thread? Flash news: Many men talk this way with their male friends when discussing women and sexual encounters. Even some women use similar language when discussing their experiences with men. This does not mean that they all don't care about the women or they only see them as a piece of meat (some do of course), this is your own projection already. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and is forcing you to read this thread. If you don't like the language used, you don't have to torture yourself by reading it.

@Inliytened1 To answer your question, on a beach under a blanket! This was in the evening and there were not many people there but still was so thrilling. Contrary to what some other people say, I appreciate this thread and the raw unfiltered way that you write. It’s nice to see some authenicity for a change. @Natasha Tori Maru The title of the thread alone makes it clear that this is a man’s thread, so the few women who are on this forum can avoid it completely and don’t have to read it. Some of you (people in general not women) these days get offended and triggered way too easily… There is nothing inherently wrong with what he is writing, mutual sexual encounters are not a crime. Don’t like the language used? Then don’t read it or should there be a warning message in the beginning just like in videos, “viewer discretion is advised” ?

Leo, banning people and unmodding mods for rightfully holding you accountable and questioning your outrageous claims will not make the problem go away. You have conveniently been dodging the question that many are looking for the answer to: Where is the alien transformation video? You said that the biggest obstacle to producing the video was finding a camera that would record your face transforming into a colorful alien god. And what is the obstacle now?

@Leo Gura Leo, I quoted exactly what you wrote an hour ago, yet instead of replying to me, you decided to go back and substantially edit your original reply by adding details that weren't there when I responded. You are literally rewriting your response after being challenged instead of addressing the criticism directly. At the very least, have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the edit and respond to what I actually said. Regardless, the issue here isn't really your standards of rigor. You weren't presenting some carefully researched conclusion that later turned out to be based on weak evidence. You claimed that your awakening would contradict 5000 years of spiritual teaching and that you would morph into an Alien Intelligence on video, with full conviction. Do you understand how absurd this sounds and why people here feel the need to call you out on it?

1) Let's not reduce this to just a “hasty post.” Here is exactly what you said: You explicitly said that people would visually see you morph into an Alien Intelligence, and then added, “If I don't, then you can call out my bullshit.” That's exactly what people are doing now, isn't it? 2) Why is it that when you hold people accountable and question their claims, you're being epistemically responsible, but when someone does the same to you, they're “hung up”? You always encourage others to hold themselves accountable, yet for some reason, you refuse to do the same yourself. A post admitting that you were wrong (being delusional and grandiose, for example) would go a long way for everyone on this forum.

First of all, you keep describing your ayahuasca visions and symbolic interpretations as "direct firsthand experiences of the Feminine" but that’s not actually what "direct experience" means. What you experienced was internal imagery and emotional states, which you interpreted through the lenses of Yin/Yang, Jungian archetypes, mythology, Taoism, and your existing ideas about the feminine. That's a personal spiritual experience but it is not direct experience of some external metaphysical feminine principle. You interpreted the symbolic content (that your mind produced) through the frameworks you already believe in. This is no different than members of Santo Daime who claim to see and meet Jesus during their ayahuasca trips. They all interpret it as direct experience and contact with Jesus. In both these cases, the experience is internal, generated by the mind and is shaped by pre-existing beliefs and cultural symbols. The issue is that you are mixing an internal experience with an external metaphysical claim. (Just in case, I am not a materialist, have done my share of psychedelics including 5-meo, etc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And now back to the main point. You keep redefining "femininity" itself in a way that removes it entirely from the real world. You’ve shifted femininity from something observable in human behavior into a cosmic, mystical, archetypal force that only exists in symbolic visions and psychedelic states. That’s your personal metaphysical belief, and you’re free to hold it. But once you define femininity as: - non-empirical -unmeasurable -inaccessible to observation -rooted in altered states and mythology -something "culture gets wrong" by default -something only available through symbolic interpretation Then you’re no longer talking about femininity as it actually exists in human societies. You’re talking about a private spiritual cosmology. And that cosmology has no ability to explain or even acknowledge the very real cultural differences in feminine expression that my original point was about. It’s metaphysical, personal, and symbolic, which is fine, but it can’t be used to dismiss or override real-world patterns of femininity. So when you label cultural, behavioral femininity as "patriarchy costumes", what you’re really doing is rejecting anything that doesn’t fit your mystical model. I was talking about femininity as it shows up in actual women in actual cultures. You’re talking about femininity as an archetypal force that you experienced in your psychedelic journeys. Those two things are completely different, and it just means we’re discussing different subjects entirely - with respect.

You’re doing exactly what pseudo-intellectuals do when they get cornered: 1)You can’t refute the actual point, so you attack "21st century social science" as "neutered". 2)You dismiss rigor and clear definitions as narrow mindedness. 3)You collapse distinctions again because you need "essence = trait = characteristic" for your argument to survive. 4)Then you circle back to the same loaded question I already explained is a bad question. This isn’t good faith argumentation. It’s an attempt to drag me into your frame while refusing to define your own terms. Given that, I will not be engaging with you any further.

You’re trying to collapse two different categories ''traits" and "essence" as if they’re interchangeable, but they aren’t. Not in psychology, not in anthropology, and not in gender studies. A trait is measurable and statistical. An essence is metaphysical and universal. They are not commensurable unless you redefine both concepts to mean the same thing, which is exactly the word game you’re accusing me of. You asked for a list of "woman traits," which is a question that assumes women have some built in universal qualities. That’s why psychology doesn’t frame femininity that way. It’s a pattern of tendencies, not a built in essence. And calling my argument "pseudointellectual" or "feminine" is an example of rhetoric you use to avoid engaging with the distinction I made. If you continue to argue in bad faith and play word games, I will not be engaging with you any further.

The point isn’t that "woman" = a fixed list of traits. Psychology doesn’t treat femininity as an essence, it treats it as a set of traits and behaviors that correlate with women statistically and culturally, not universally or absolutely. Just like a height isn’t a "male essence" but men are taller on average Risk-taking isn’t "male essence" but men score higher statistically Agreeableness isn’t "female essence" but women score higher across cultures None of these mean "all men" or "all women", you understand? Femininity is the set of traits that cultures and psychological studies consistently associate with women more than men. So the question “Give me the list of woman traits” is already framing the topic incorrectly. It assumes femininity must be some metaphysical essence rather than a statistical set of traits historically associated with women

Yup that's a classic, I know what you mean